Deepak Chopra and Intent

Deepak Chopra and Intent

Faith Quizzes Get an F

posted by Admin

An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question: At the Saddleback Church Forum, pastor Rick Warren began his interviews with John McCain and Barack Obama by saying: “We believe in separation of church and state, but not faith and politics.” What’s your response to that and to the forum?
For me, the God quiz that Barack Obama endured with barely concealed sweaty palms and that John McCain breezed through with seasoned casualness has no place in American politics. Rick Warren is a feel-good preacher who softened the interrogation and administered no canings, but that’s irrelevant. To claim that “faith and politics” is different — and more acceptable — than “church and state” is semantic sleight of hand. The reason that any contemporary presidential candidate is forced to suffer the indignity of confessing his religious beliefs in public goes back to the Reagan revolution. Pandora’s box was opened by the right wing in 1980, admitting not just inappropriate matters of religion into political life but also making acceptable a range of prejudice, bigotry, and divisiveness that had been banished by an era of liberal social legislation. Reagan, after all, was the president who, if left to his own devices, would have let thousands more AIDS victims die through neglect and lack of funding for basic medical research. The implicit reason, well understood by the right and endorsed by fundamentalists, was that gays deserve what they get if they pursue a lifestyle that doesn’t match right-wing Christian ideology. Minorities, women, immigrants, and progressivism in general were given the same back hand.
The Obama-McCain evening, being a stepchild of conservative beliefs, was stacked against Obama, or any secularist, Democrat or not. Indeed, it was stacked against anyone who understands the basic reason for separating church and state, which is to keep closed the box of religious divisiveness that Reagan sprang open. As a performance, neither candidate displayed either the unvarnished truth or unblemished integrity. The real message that was meant to come across from Obama was “I really am American,” and from McCain was “I’m really right as Reagan.” Viewer’s notes: Dull pandering to the audience from both sides. Lots of mention of Jesus, sin, faith, prayer. McCain came off as more prepared and polished in his responses. He went for Reagan’s easy folksy confidence, catering to the audience’s craving for moral simplicity. His answer to the question “Is there evil and how to deal with it?” was typical: “Yes, there is evil and we will defeat it.” Obama said, roughly, “Yes there is evil, and we can’t hope to defeat it on our own, but we can be soldiers for the Lord to do what we can.”
For McCain, it’s all as simple as what Reaganism carved out almost thirty years ago: Gay marriage is bad, abortion is bad, activist judges are bad. Winning in Iraq is good, getting Osama bin Laden is good, offshore oil drilling is good, and freedom is great. Obama talked about the hard work and sacrifices we need to make in order to overcome energy dependence and academic mediocrity, also the respect we need to accord others on the abortion issue–not quite as stirring as reactionary platitudes.
In short, McCain appealed to our escapist magical morality, Obama appealed to reason and practicalities. That has been the story throughout the campaign. Everyone concedes that Obama’s way is more mature, realistic, and ultimately right. But I doubt that’s enough to cure a case of sweaty palms.
Get a sneak peak of our new venture at http://intent.com
www.intentblog.com
www.deepakchopra.com
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/deepak_chopra/

When Illusions Refuse to Die (Part 2)

posted by dchopra

A great deal of confusion is being stirred up now over where the disastrous experience of Iraq and the collapse of neoconservatism will lead. By an ironic twist, Barack Obama has been labeled an idealist, when in fact he is an arch-realist who detected the need for change much earlier than any other major politician. John McCain, who cannot escape his share in promoting right-wing illusions, advocates the reversal of history, which means ignoring Iraq and continuing on as if it never happened. But some significant illusions died on the battlefield over the past five years, leading to major shifts on many fronts. Let’s continue down the list.
3. The illusion of America as the friendly superpower. As pure wishful thinking, this one has no peer, and yet the vast majority of the public still probably believes in it, thanks to a long history of using American power for good. That good is undeniable, but in its shadow the U.S. acts like any other nation state, aggressively promoting its own ends and using military force when it meets opposition. The concept of nationalism by definition excludes other nations, and that exclusion is never neutral. “They” are suspect foreigners who are different from us, not just in their policies but in their moral being. Thus the U.S. has a ridiculous image of vaguely immoral France, and for fifty years the image of evil Russians was promoted without shame as a means of pumping up American militarism. (The public still believes that Reagan toppled an evil empire, ignoring the blatant fact that the collapse of Communism was primarily caused by its own internal failings and dissension within the Warsaw Pact.)
After 1989, when the U.S. became the only surviving superpower, the illusion of our friendliness turned paper thin in the hands of militant neoconservatives who aimed to Americanize the world by force, In total disregard of other traditions and local history, they set out to reinvent the Middle East, essentially by saying, “Our way of life is obviously so much better than yours — adopt it now or else.” Suddenly the friendly superpower found itself saddled, not with the global sympathy earned on 9/11 but its opposite: we are imagined to be a worldwide threat and rampantly selfish in our ambitions to dominate others.
4. The illusion that alliances are expendable. The Iraq war began with touting the alliance of the willing, typifying as right anyone who wanted to fight Bush’s cause and wrong anyone who didn’t. As if this wasn’t divisive enough, the morally righteous countries who joined in the conflict met with miniature debacles that mirrored our own. But Iraq was a nakedly unilateral war when all the verbal gloss is stripped away, and as such it showed almost complete disregard for alliances. In addition, the neocons left the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester on its own, the first time since 1948 that the U.S. withdrew its good offices and refused to act as a peace broker despite the crying need for one. But 9/11, plus some canny maneuvering on the part of Ariel Sharon, forced the administration’s hand, and a show of allying Israeli and American interests had to be resumed.
The neocons were so certain of American hegemony that the general message sent to our long-time allies was “Who needs you anymore?” This attitude, even if by some miracle of history it proved true, made the world order uncertain and steadily began to allow traditional allies to drift away. Now that American dominance is uncertain, to say the least, two things are happening at once. Europe is feeling friendlier to the interests of Russia and China, while formerly subservient countries have discovered that they can stand up to the bully on the block and not be crushed. This two-sided instability has yet to show how far the U.S. has toppled; confusion still reigns, but the signs are ominous.
(to be cont.)
Get a sneak peak of our new venture at http://intent.com
www.intentblog.com
www.deepakchopra.com

Deepak Chopra: Understanding Consciousness

posted by akornfeld

when we understand the brain, we’ll be able to understand consciousness objectively. But consciousness can only be explored by consciousness so it has to be a subjective experience.

“Forgive Me, I’m Sorry I Got Caught”

posted by Admin

An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question:
Another politician (John Edwards) has admitted to having an extramarital affair, and another spouse (Elizabeth Edwards) has been forgiving. At what point does a person of faith cease to forgive? At what point does forgiveness become destructive?
A cynic might say, in the wake of so many adulterous politicians, that in future they should issue a preemptive confession before running for President to save The National Enquirer excess ink. Why wait until you are caught? John Edwards’ gotcha moment hasn’t stirred much glee, perhaps because a rich personal-injury lawyer was an unlikely figure to mold into presidential stature to begin with. On the more humane side, his wife’s illness and Edwards’ own political failures create a sense of sadness. They both deserve sympathy and the right to retreat into the shelter of home, family, and hopefully a marriage whose wounds will heal. The confession itself smacked of hypocrisy — as with other cheating politicians, one suspects that Edwards is mostly sorry that he got caught. that he would cheat on a devoted spouse with cancer is best passed over with a cringing silence.
But the question posed is whether forgiveness can be so difficult that it stretches religious faith too far. Yes, of course. The most devout Jews are not expected, required, rewarded, or pressured to forgive the Holocaust. Such forgiveness would be the same as saintliness. Human nature is vulnerable. Violence and persecution create wounds in any faith that not only last but are exacerbated, because for true believers attacking their faith is the same as attacking God — an unforgivable affront. The notion that God is bothered by being attacked seems irrational to someone outside organized religion, but it is a persistent article of belief and has been for centuries.
A more probing question, then, would be whether forgiveness and faith are compatible. Yes again. The devout, like the rest of us, are capable of holding two contradictory ideas at the same time. As unforgivable as Christians in the past found it that the Jews crucified Christ (their perspective, not ours), forgiveness is a primary tenet in Jesusʼ teachings. He asks for the most difficult form of forgiveness when it is offered to one’s enemies. How does a Christian bridge the gap between that ideal and the natural reaction of revenge and resentment? I feel that traditional Christianity doesn’t bridge the gap. Without a shift in consciousness, it’s impossible to clear the psychological slate and forgive deep hurts just because you aspire to be moral. The imprints made on the psyche by violence and humiliation, guilt and shame, prejudice and lack of love, are as real as wounds to the body. The psyche possesses some healing mechanisms that work — the passage of time, forgetfulness, the will to forgive, a strong sense of self, and love. These healing methods, however, have their limits.
Eventually, forgiveness cannot be accessed simply because you want to forgive. The essence of forgiveness is transcendent — it lies in a domain of consciousness where the wound doesn’t exist and the wrong never occurred. Whenever we forgive our children and other loved ones, we do so by transcending the normal responses of blame and judgment. To find a larger sense of forgiveness, you have to undertake a journey that leads to this transcendent place inside yourself. Sadly, few people begin the journey with enough knowledge and guidance to arrive at the goal. As Edwards will discover, it’s an unforgiving world. But one must be deeply grateful that transcendent forgiveness is real. After all, the day may come when we need it ourselves for our own transgressions.
Get a sneak peak of our new venture at http://intent.com
www.intentblog.com
www.deepakchopra.com
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/deepak_chopra/

Previous Posts

Memo to Neuroscience: “We Are Not Brain Puppets”
The notion that human beings walk, talk, think, and do things because our brains control us is a fringe idea, easily refuted with a few moment’s thought and rarely taken seriously. But it got a boost from an Op-ed piece in the New York Times last week under the title, “Are We Really Conscious?

posted 2:29:43pm Oct. 20, 2014 | read full post »

A Science of Miracles--No Longer Optional? (Part 2)
For most people, miracles are something left behind in childhood. They require innocent belief, not adult rationality. The camp of vocal skeptics and atheists provide a crossroads, in fact, where one way leads to irrationality, the other to rationality, as if this definitively defines where the trut

posted 1:17:47pm Oct. 13, 2014 | read full post »

A Science of Miracles—No Longer Optional?
In its ambition to explain every aspect of the natural world, modern science has sidestepped very few problems. Some mysteries are so difficult that they defy the scientific method. It’s hard to conceive of experiments that will tell us what happened before time and space emerged, for example. But

posted 10:36:20am Oct. 06, 2014 | read full post »

Can Sam Harris Wake Us Up? (Part 2)
Most of us recognized ourselves in the mirror this morning.  The person looking back at us has a familiar name, a family, a job.  He (or she) carries around a long menu of likes and dislikes, along with a personal history from the moment we emerged from the womb. It would amaze the vast majority o

posted 11:38:22am Sep. 29, 2014 | read full post »

Can Sam Harris Wake Us Up?
It caused a stir when Sam Harris, in a new book titled Waking Up, changed his message from militant atheism to peaceful Buddhism. A positive message is better than a negative one, and since Buddhism is often labeled as “a religion without God,” Harris's move isn't as radical as it looks at first

posted 1:31:53pm Sep. 22, 2014 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.